Open Data in Italy has a lot to tell about some stories characterised by a really interesting bottom-up approach.I like the idea that we should innovate without permission, as David Osimo said some time ago and many other experts agreed. “ We can make an augmented government with the right tools“.

Here are some notes on what’s happening in Italy around these topics.

Working Groups to help municipalities going through Open Data

There is a news on epsiplatform about Alessandria and its initiative related to a multi-stakeholders approach to Open Data. Alessandria is a municipality which has a default: it’s interesting how trasparency and re-use of data will help a better governance.

This isn’t a novelty: Florence had opened Open Data supported by Wikitalia, standing on the shoulders of its communities. We, as a community, can be a sort of “push” actors, and supporters against those who don’t understand the value of these actions inside the government and the administration.

There is also the case of Palermo, who has been publishing Open Data since the 23rd of February (which was the International Open Data Day). Palermo is working to make Open Data an ongoing process, and not only an event fixed during the time. A process which will involve all interested stakeholders who live in the city.

The lawsuit targeted a developer of a service, Swurl, who just used an API for another service, Seeqpod, that was being sued. It’s quite troublesome to claim that one company is liable for simply using an API of another company who, itself, is probably not doing anything infringing

If EMI does win, it would set a precedent that the usage of an API puts the developer at risk of a lawsuit should the service they’re tapping into ever get sued. Such a decision would have huge ramifications for developers, who could become weary of using any service that could conceivably be considered illegal. It would stifle innovation. And frankly, it’s ridiculous.

The lawsuit targeted a developer of a service, Swurl, who just used an API for another service, Seeqpod, that was being sued. It’s quite troublesome to claim that one company is liable for simply using an API of another company who, itself, is probably not doing anything infringing.

Rather than just suing the companies, it’s also suing investors and the founders personally. This isn’t just highly unusual, it’s a clear attempt to pressure these companies into settling, as no matter how legitimate your stance is, it’s quite a scary thing to be sued personally, and potentially have personal assets at risk. Suing the founders personally is legal bullying. It’s a clear abuse of the legal system to try to force a settlement, rather than an actual attempt to raise a legal issue.